LIDAR Speeding Ticket in Washington

[Tarpon]

My question involves a speeding ticket from the State of: Washington

65 in a 60, been through the forum questions and responses and appreciate them. Nothing jumps out for me based on others I read. The LIDAR showed a visable display of 74 mph at a range of 570 feet.

The laser SMD affidavit reads:

"The WSP Tag # of the (LTI 20-20)/(Kustom Pro Laser II/III) LIDAR SMD is L1191. The LIDAR SMD was used in a stationary position. The (LTI 20-20)/Kustom Pro Laser II/III), WSP Tag#110509 has been certified for accuracy by a factory trained WA State Patrol Technician and found to be in proper working order. An operational check of the LIDAR SMD's accuracy wa performed by the use of three tests: (1) internal self diagnostic test, (2) (scope)/(HUD aiming reticule alignment test), and (3) (fixed distance zero velocity)/(range measurement) test at 150 feet both prior to the beginning and end of my shift. The LIDAR SMD unit passed all three tests without any errors and was found to be working properly. I have been trained and certified in the use and operation of the LIDAR SMD."

Trained and certified doesn't speak to expertise, but I don't think that argument will get me far. Clean record. I'd appreciate any thoughts and any suggestions as to approaches I may take in court, including a lesser payment etc. (I would like to keep my deferment to use for my next post, which unfortunately came on the heels of this one). Thanks. Best.

[colemac65]

motion the judge to supress the officers affidavit as he mentions that three tests were performed, but he does NOT inform us WHO performed the actual tests...the officer also states it was tested before his shift....(when before the day of, a week before, or months before...he has specified an indefinite period of time as to "when before" i am on my phone and its hard to type......but i think you have a good way to beat this here! what court is this in?

[Tarpon]

King County Distric Court, East Division, Issaquah. I thought the same as you re: WHO performed the test. A technician checked the equipment and he's trained to use it but unclear if he's qualified to do the "operational check" or who did it. As to WHEN, I thought the magic words are 'prior to the beginning and end of my shift'. I get the language nuances but not the law, which is why I am fishing for lesser payment ideas (even though this is the lowest speeding ticket out there at 5 mph over). Thanks much for your time and thoughts.

[BrendanjKeegan]

Can you scan and post the affidavit? It looks to me like the officer hasn't even stated that you were speeding... It doesn't matter how accurate this SMD is, if there's no testimony as to the speed of the defendant's vehicle then who's to say that the defendant was speeding?

[Tarpon]

Sorry, I started my post with a reference to it:
"I, Trooper X was operating the LIDAR Speed Measuring Device at the location: westbound I-90. The LIDAR SMD showed a visible display of 74 mph at a range of 570 feet, and that the vehicle was approaching. The vehicle was in lane 2 of 4. The posted speed limit in the area is 60 mph. I Trooper X stoped and contacted the driver, who stated:"

[the quote from my first post]

"I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of WA the foregoing is true and correct (RCW 9A.72.085), that I have probable cause to believe the named person committed the attached offense(s), and I am entering my authorized user ID and password to authenticate it." Trooper X, WSP Badge #, King Co, WA, Date

[blewis]

Plus, it looks like the officer was using TWO DIFFERENT Lidar units -- #L1191 and #110509. That's why it would be better for you to SCAN the document, post it to a host (like PhotoBucket) and place a link here. It avoids a lot of questions.

Barry

[Tarpon]

Here you go, thanks. http://s1141.photobucket.com/albums/..._WA.jpg‏

[Speedy Gonzalez]

This is an easy dismissal. The officer screwed up royally.

Here is how your case will go:

The judge will call your name. The judge will see if you are eligible for a deferral. If the judge asks if you wish to take the deferral, say "No, your honor."

The judge will ask if you have any pre-trial motions. Say, "Yes, I do, your honor. I move for dismissal."

The judge will ask, "Based on what?"

You say, "The officer lists two different serial numbers from three possible models, and does not state which of those three models was used. There is no such serial number '110509' listed on the current certification list that is on file with the court."

If he doesn't dismiss it on that alone, then you say, "I have another motion."

The judge will ask what it is.

You say, "I move for dismissal."

The judge will asked "Based on what?"

You say "The officer does not state which of the listed devices was used NOR which of the listed devices was tested. NOR does the officer state that HE performed the tests on the device. The officer only states, 'An operational check of the LIDAR SMD's accuracy was performed.'"

If the judge does not dismiss your ticket on one or the other, I will eat my hat.

[Tarpon]

Speedy, you are too fast to keep a hat on is my guess.

I found a LIDAR certification list with serial numbers for WA from November 2010. http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/courts/...r-20101123.pdf

Can I access the list that will be on file with the court?

[Speedy Gonzalez]

The judge and/or prosecutor will almost certainly have a copy handy in the court room. You can always ask the court clerk to see the LIDAR/RADAR certification binder for the Washington State Patrol. Just don't ask for a copy or they may charge you up to $9.00 for it.

Oh, one small modification. The wording he used is "WSP tag #", not "serial number". There is no such WSP tag # 110509. There isn't even a serial number 110509. Not even on the RADAR list.